mandated spay/neuter- yes or no?

[halfwaynowhere]

California is trying to pass a bill to mandate spay and neuter of all cats and dogs by the age of four months. This sounds good, but the way the bill is worded, I am not sure about it. I know there are some medical cases where spaying or neutering would put the pet at great risk. One part of the bill says that you have 30 days from the date of compliance to get a letter from your veterinarian, saying that it is unsafe to perform the operation, which basically extends the deadline for 75 days, which would be alright if it was a temporary condition, but not if its permanent. Another part of the bill states that in order to obtain an intact permit, all of these conditions must be met:
1. Registered as a purebreed with a pedigree with any of the following- AKC, UKC, American Dog Breeders Association, International Cat Association, or any other recognized registry.
2. The dog is trained and meets the conditions of a service dog, guide dog, or signal dog.
3. The dog is trained and actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and rescue.
4. the owner of the cat or dog provides a letter from a licensed veterinarian that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog.

These aren't the exact words of the bill, but it does say that all of those conditions must be met, which I think is an error, but if the bill were passed without that being corrected, could prove to be a disaster.
The fines for not having your pet fixed, as well as the fees to obtain the intact permits, must be used to fund low cost or free spay/neuter programs.

Anyways, I am all for mandated spay and neuter, but I am not in support of this bill as is, unless they change the word ALL to ONE or something. Any thoughts?

[Athena-Nadine]

I agree with you.

[halfwaynowhere]

whoops, I was reading the original bill, not the amended version. it has been amended to say any, not all. here is a link to the amended bill, for those of you interested in reading it.
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070409_amended_asm_v98.html

[Shanti]

No! Mandatory, no. For one that eliminates people from obtaining mixed breeds, which some prefer. Also, after a while, only the wealthy will have the pleasure of owning a cat or dog and thats just wrong!

Take for example, us. We needed a dog for herding our goats and sheep. I am not paying 1,000 bucks on a dog that could get kicked in the head and killed while doing its job. Farm life is risky for the workers, people and dogs. Its crazy to spend thousands on a dog for farm work.
And its not even affordable as an option for small farming.
Heck most of the family farmers out here have working dogs and none I know could pay thousands of dollars. Its just not practical.

And the only people who will be allowed to breed have to have something special about the animal making it more expensive to buy a pup or kit, or they have to be an actual business with tax ID, again making it expensive. And puppy mills are businesses and often licensed as such so they would qualify to continue! Sounds like bigger business wins again!

So in Cal if you cant afford thousands of dollars for a dog or cat guess you'll be petless.

No to any mandatory spay or neuter programs.

Thats my 2 cents. :)

[Shanti]

Oh and I'd rather buy a dog bred at home with a family and kids than one from a 'breeder' that doesn't have the dogs living as members of the family. And I prefer mixed breeds.

[Brightshores]

I don't have a problem with a law that states that any pet who will be allowed outside unsupervised needs to be fixed, with appropriate fines and licensing.. That would cut way down on the feral population and the poor unwanted cats and dogs who are killed by the thousands, but wouldn't cause the problems Shanti brought up.

[WitchJezebel]

No! Mandatory, no. For one that eliminates people from obtaining mixed breeds, which some prefer. Also, after a while, only the wealthy will have the pleasure of owning a cat or dog and thats just wrong!

And the only people who will be allowed to breed have to have something special about the animal making it more expensive to buy a pup or kit, or they have to be an actual business with tax ID, again making it expensive. And puppy mills are businesses and often licensed as such so they would qualify to continue! Sounds like bigger business wins again!

So in Cal if you cant afford thousands of dollars for a dog or cat guess you'll be petless.

No to any mandatory spay or neuter programs.

Thats my 2 cents. :)

Oh and I'd rather buy a dog bred at home with a family and kids than one from a 'breeder' that doesn't have the dogs living as members of the family. And I prefer mixed breeds.


:cheers: I totally agree. I now own a mutt, and I wouldn't have it any other way. And he was free!

[Annest]

It is good to spay and neuter your pet.Donīt think its seams like a good law. Iīd rather have a mutt than a purebreed, considering how messed up most purebreed are today.

[Shanti]

I don't have a problem with a law that states that any pet who will be allowed outside unsupervised needs to be fixed, with appropriate fines and licensing.. That would cut way down on the feral population and the poor unwanted cats and dogs who are killed by the thousands, but wouldn't cause the problems Shanti brought up.I agree to that!! If your not keeping your animal under your watch then sure, mandate it to be fixed. Heck when people are found not caring for critters, neglect or abuse, they shouldn't be allowed to own anymore ever. That would help too.

And enforce the leash and licensing laws. Here, in the city, we have both licensing and leash laws for dogs and cats! In the rural areas its only dogs but should be for cats too. The licenses are kept cheap so there's no excuse. You get a deal if you spay or neuter. Our dogs licenses are only 3 dollars for a fixed dog. So there is incentive there.

100 dollar fine if your cat goes off your property without a leash in the city. Same for a dog's but includes rural areas too.

[Athena-Nadine]

Shanti and Brightshores both raise very good points that I hadn't initially thought of. I agree with them both.

[Sun Sprite]

That law sounds kinda like the story I wrote a few years ago.

It wouldn't be long before future pet owners would have to ship animals from other states into California just to get new animals. Within ten years, the resident populations would be old, or only expensive purebreeds.

While California is a long thion state, and maybe they could set up a tag travel team to meet a potential pet half way, you are still talking several hours drive to meet your new pet, and what if the personalities don't mesh?

Yes, it will clear out the pounds in a hurry!

[Pesha]

While I am a supporter of spaying/nuetering animals, it would sem that a manditory law is not something you could legislate. Too many variables tghe way this law is written. Too many things could go wrong and knowing human nature well they would go wrong.

[wolfjan1]

I am really getting sick of our lives being legislated.
If there is a continuing problem PEOPLE GET A LITTLE COMMON SENSE! If you are getting a pet or two, by all means, spay or neuter your pet. But not until the vet says thay they are of proper age. Doing it too soon can REALLY mess them up later in life, in the way of under developed kidney tubes and renal failure.
If you want to breed your pet, do the research. Talk to the vet about the pros and cons and if there are any possible genetic faults that your pet may already have.
But, THIS LAW is ridiculous.

[Evanescent]

A big loud YES.

There are PLENTY of mutts to go around. We will not see any shortage of mutts. Mutt fans need not worry.

Shelters get their dogs from other states, even other COUNTRIES now. Something like 95% of my shelter's puppies come from the southern U.S. and I used to be in an agility class with a guy who had two mutts of Puerto Rican origin. The only time my shelter gets pups from this area is when they're brought in as strays or relinquished by owners -- our weekly "puppy shipments" are from the south where feral dogs are WAY more common. There will ALWAYS be mutts. (Don't forget about purebred shelter dogs, too. A lot of purebreds are relinquished or even found stray!)

This is by no means shutting down shelters. It's making the lives of shelter workers a LOT easier by helping to put a stop to irresponsible breeding. Accidents will still happen. Purebred dogs will still be relinquished. As I said earlier, dogs will be imported from elsewhere. With the staggering statistics of how many dogs are euthed in shelters each year, you cannot tell me for a cherry-pickin' minute that measures such as these will not help decrease the number of animals put down. The key word to dogs that are euthanized is "UNWANTED"... responsible breeders only breed when there is a demand (read: pre-evaluated buyers lined up and on a waiting list) for their puppies that come from solid breeding stock that are of good mind and body and screened for potential problems (hips/eyes/ears/whathaveyou).

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the Designer Dog associations will count as breed registries... and a Labradoodle is just as much of a mutt as my good friend's Lab/hound/Malinois/Goddess-knows-what mix is.

As for the puppy mills... California has little to worry about. It's the 'farming states' in the midwest (think the Dakotas, Montana, etc.) that have the very lax laws that consider dogs to be livestock and thus can be bred and produced as such. Next time you encounter a pet store selling puppies, ask them where they were born. Nine times out of ten it's from a midwestern state.

How does saying "if your dog or cat isn't registered/a working animal/used in law enforcement/unfit to spay or neuter, it's going to be spayed or neutered" equate "only the wealthy will have dogs and cats"? Dogs from breeders are NOT always expensive and definately do NOT cost 'thousands of dollars', especially when compared to what a good shelter generally has to charge for their dogs. (I paid less for my field-champion-lines English Springer Spaniel puppy than what most of the puppies at my work are going for right now.) As I keep restating, shelters will still exist and you guys will still be able to get your mutt dogs/cats if that's your thing.

It also depends on what you consider "expensive". I think paying $800 for a dog that has a pretty definate adult size, a pretty definate adult temperament (although flukes do occur), comes with breeder support, and a health guarantee against any genetic abnormality is WAY cheaper than $450 for a mutt that could grow to be 75lbs or 125lbs, has no health guarantee, no definate adult temperament, and no breeder to contact if things go wrong. Shelter dogs are great for some people and not great for others. Me personally, I could see myself rescuing a purebred, from, say, a breed rescue, but I highly doubt I could see myself with a mixed breed. I like having a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get.

But I'm off on a breeder vs. shelter, mutt vs. purebred tangent and that's not where I was going.

Nutshell: Mandatory Spay/Neuter = Less Unwanted Animals Produced = Less Unwanted Animals Euthanized = Everyone's Happy. :) Mutts will still exist, shelters will still have a job to do, but the numbers of dogs rotting away in no-kill shelters, dying on the streets, or being euthanized due to lack of space will all seriously decrease.

[Philosophia]

I honestly don't know. While I support neutering and spaying, I don't think making it law would prove worthwhile. Would the spaying/neutering be made cheaper? How would they enforce this? The pets I have don't come from reputable breeders and I think if a law like this was introduced we wouldn't have them.

However, there are so many unwanted pets out there that a law like this is warranted. Here, in Australia, we have a dog license (or registration) that shows what people have, what type of breed they are, and their age. If their was another license to show that they can breed (and this license was free), I think that would be a good idea.

[_Banbha_]

:awilly: So many very good points are being made in this thread, I have to think about it.

The shelters where I'm at in NY get dogs from Puerto Rico and big time from down south. Lots more hound dogs and hound mixes around when they used to be uncommon here.

[LadyCanine]

I had a looooooong post all typed out, and then I lost it......so, basically

The law is a joke

It gives the OK for mass producers to breed (and they ARE in cali)

It takes away the right for responsible breeders who pick/choise their bitches/studs on health temperment and/or working ability/show ability to breed in the future.

It takes away the right for owners to decided when they think is right to have their dog done. (for health reasons I will NOT get a dog done before 6 months, longer if I can help it)

Hopefully the way they right it up again will be different....way different than the original one.

[Evanescent]

It gives the OK for mass producers to breed (and they ARE in cali)

It takes away the right for responsible breeders who pick/choise their bitches/studs on health temperment and/or working ability/show ability to breed in the future.

How!?

It says right in the bill that if the dog has a title or is working on a title, it is eligible for an 'intact permit' and thus doesn't have to be spayed/neutered. In my opinion any dog to be bred should have a title or at least be pointed SOMEWHERE: conformation, agility, protection, obedience, rally-obedience, flyball, tracking, hunting, field work, water work, earthdog, lure coursing, carting, herding. All dogs are capable of learning and all dogs are capable of competing in some sort of event.

And the AKC does random checks on ALL of its kennels, and they become more and more frequent based on the litters you produce. I forget the exact 'cut-offs' but anyone producing like 20 litters a year or something is going to be inspected like once every two years or something like that. If the conditions they're in are unsanitary or if bitches are being overbred, an inspection will show that. I don't know what ADBA or UKC do in terms of inspections.

The only thing that I disagree with on this bill is the spay/neuter age. It's a thin line to walk on -- if you wait too long, the animals are old enough to breed and it doesn't really solve the overpopulation issue, etc. etc. But I think six months is a LOT more 'satisfying' if you will. My vet says 6mo. for pet dogs, but longer if you're into showing/agility/schutzhund/whatever and want the dog's muscling and temperament to advance as much as possible. That's a BIG thing for the 'working dog' people (french ring/schutzhund/search and rescue/police-type work). So I think that should be changed, personally.

[Shanti]

How!?

It says right in the bill that if the dog has a title or is working on a title, it is eligible for an 'intact permit' and thus doesn't have to be spayed/neutered. In my opinion any dog to be bred should have a title or at least be pointed SOMEWHERE: conformation, agility, protection, obedience, rally-obedience, flyball, tracking, hunting, field work, water work, earthdog, lure coursing, carting, herding. All dogs are capable of learning and all dogs are capable of competing in some sort of event.

And the AKC does random checks on ALL of its kennels, and they become more and more frequent based on the litters you produce. I forget the exact 'cut-offs' but anyone producing like 20 litters a year or something is going to be inspected like once every two years or something like that. If the conditions they're in are unsanitary or if bitches are being overbred, an inspection will show that. I don't know what ADBA or UKC do in terms of inspections.

The only thing that I disagree with on this bill is the spay/neuter age. It's a thin line to walk on -- if you wait too long, the animals are old enough to breed and it doesn't really solve the overpopulation issue, etc. etc. But I think six months is a LOT more 'satisfying' if you will. My vet says 6mo. for pet dogs, but longer if you're into showing/agility/schutzhund/whatever and want the dog's muscling and temperament to advance as much as possible. That's a BIG thing for the 'working dog' people (french ring/schutzhund/search and rescue/police-type work). So I think that should be changed, personally.Its not just a matter of saying your dog is a herding dog or a sled dog or show dog, you have to prove it with documentation from accredited sources. The family breeder who just breeds a pair or two of Shetland sheep dogs, and makes no profit as you don't with just a few because of vet and feed cost, you cant afford to put that kind of money into all the proof required. If you can, your going to be charging outrageous prices for your pups, thus only the wealthy can obtain one.

The puppy mills are licensed businesses that make profit. They don't have to prove anything other than their tax and business ID info.
As for AKC, I have know of plenty of places that bred AKC dogs without ever being inspected. AKC doesn't watch every listed breeder, commercial or private.

And this still eliminates the right to breed mixed breed dogs as they are not pedigrees and this bill only allows breeding of pure pedigrees.
Again not fair to those who don't want a pedigree dog because they prefer mixed and it keeps the prices out of reach for many.

All this applies to cats too. No breeding of cats unless your a licensed business or you can prove your cat is a specialty cat.
So no more pet cats for sale unless your willing too to pay high rates as there will be a higher demand than supply in time.

[Shanti]

If your a business you can breed if you provide this:
(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other means,
as determined by the local entity authorized to issue permits, that
he or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency. If your mom and pop with a pair of English sheep dogs or cats you have to provide ALL of the following:
(2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates, as determined in the
discretion of the local entity authorized to issue intact permits,
all of the following:
(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has
competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition
within the last two years.
(B) His or her cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by
an approved registry.
(C) The cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in
the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an
approved purebred registry or association. Or you have to prove this for dogs:
(3) The dog is appropriately trained and meets the
definition of guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth in
subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.Or this for dogs:
(4) The dog is trained, or is
documented as having been appropriately trained and actively used by
law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and rescue activities.You have to prove these things, not just say it.

That eliminates mom and pop and pushes cost way through the roof!

[Jade Moon]

I can just see a big black market popping up, and the cost of dogs sky-rocketing.

[Evanescent]

There are plenty of breeders that I know of that already have such accreditation that do not charge exorbitant amounts for their puppies. Plus, there are always breed-specific rescue organizations -- they have both puppies and adult dogs. You can always find a dog from them. IMO this 'family breeder' had better be doing SOMETHING with her dogs to prove that they are worthy of being bred: showing or participating in other events. I got my ESS from a 'family breeder' but the sire was still a working hunting dog and the dam could've EASILY been titled in hunting trials.
People SHOULD have to prove that some judge somewhere said their dog was halfway decent before they go breeding them! These events are not always expensive -- take it from someone who competes in them. You can get a CD on -most- breeds of dogs with two months of every-day, 15 minutes of training. (That's the AKC's base-level obedience title, for those who don't know.) It's not rocket science and it's not expensive. Some events, such as lure coursing, earthdog, and hunting don't even require training. It's instinct -- you bring a dog to a trial and let them compete. There's really no preparation involved. Other events, like agility and conformation, require a lot more training/preparation than that and aren't necessarily for the faint of heart.
AKC this year came up with much more strict inspection rules, it's in their meeting minutes. Depending on how many litters you breed per year, you will be inspected a certain number of times. Breeders who register 4-6 litters annually are randomly selected for inspection. There are annual inspections of all breeders who register 25 or more litters, period. They also inspect pet shops and distributors advertising AKC dogs. In 2006 there were 4,800 inspections nationwide, so don't say that the AKC isn't trying.
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?SEARCH_BUTTON.X=11\&SEARCH_BUTTON.Y=9&article_id=3166
Again -- shelters will always exist. You don't need to actively try to breed mixed breed dogs... the ones on the street are doing it for you. You can get a mutt from a shelter if that's your thing. Same thing goes for cats. People care even less about purebred cats than they do dogs... most people want and adore their 'mutt cats'. And if they want a purebred, well, they can get one from a breeder.